list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds return fields but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral context needed beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states action and output; second sentence provides usage context. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with good annotations and schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but not critical for low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter description (include_inactive). Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by being read-only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Indicates when to use it, though does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The server mixes two Met-specific tools (get_artwork, search_artworks) with a large set of generic Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, etc.), making it unclear which tools actually relate to the Met museum. Agents will struggle to distinguish the domain-specific tools from the general data tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: Met-specific tools use get_/search_/list_ prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (ask_, bet_, compare_, discover_) and some use underscores while others lack verbs. The inconsistency increases cognitive load.
At 29 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a combined server. However, only 3 tools are Met-specific, so the count feels inflated by unrelated tools. A more focused Met server would have fewer tools.
For a Met museum server, the tool surface is severely limited: only search, get by ID, and list departments. Missing operations like filtering by artist, retrieving related objects, or accessing collection highlights. The domain coverage is incomplete.